Please consider the questioner and their question - can you see why the question is being asked? Often paradox, conflict and confusion come from the (contradicting) beliefs we hold (ie who we think we are/how we see the world)

PS. The actual truth may be difficult to see and impossible to say.PPS. Intent is more important than the story toldPPPS Doing your best is more important than following rules

Last edited by macdougdoug on Fri Jul 10, 2015 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Buddhist Precepts include as one of the Ten Grave Precepts an injunction against speaking falsely.

So it seems that from the standpoint of Buddhist practice, lying is not encouraged.

The Precepts, though, are really a description of the naturally spontaneous Wise and Compassionate behavior of a Buddha ("one who is 'awake' "), and as such the Precepts are not considered as normative as, say, the Decalog is ("The Ten Commandments"), and, as I say, are actually descriptive.

My Precepts Master, the Ven. Sheng Yen, in teaching about the Precepts, and transmitting them in ceremony for Ch'an lay practitioners, said, "It is better to have Precepts to 'break' than no Precepts at all". I'll add no commentary to the depth and richness of that!

best,

--Joe

ps all actions, in any case, have ...consequences, as Avisitor reminds above.

However, I have read in Yogananda's autobiographic book that a speech of people who never lies becomes very powerful and influential.So I made a vow (to try) not to lie.Then I actually didn't find many occasions when I would actually need to lie.

I don't think that we need to lie to calm someone. Like, if someone is mortally ill, I don't think that he needs to be lied. Rather, I would show him the right attitude. "We all will die", I would say.

If you are truly sincere in what you say, if you truly know what you say, then people feel that.

Later I discovered also that if you are unbiased then your speech becomes even more powerful. So now I not only don't lie (usually), but I also don't verbally shift things in my favor.

Yes, exactly. I always kept away from lying (for imagined benefit). White lies also have the presumption that we know better what that person should know or not know. I do make stupid jokes, though, where I say things that are not in accordance with the state of things, and that is a form of lying, I have to admit...

Lying is a way to bypass uncomfortable conversations- Sometimes it's wise to lie, it might save a life, but even if it does they leave behind a mess to be cleaned up on another day because in essence lies are intentional harm- But cleaning up after a lie, rather than something much worse, can be viewed as a blessing- I think it's a matter of seeing when and if a situation calls for the truth or something else- Like when hearts and minds are fragile, when you look someone in the eyes and lie or they look you in the eyes and lie to you, someone is saying that there's something tangled up inside too tender to be messed with at the moment- However, at some point, tender or not, such tangles need to be gently undone over time, time permitting- So, the answer to your question is both yes and no-

One day my wonderful mother walked in the living room wearing a really awful dress. She talked about having it for long time and none of us, their children, were able to persuade not to buy it. She spent a small fortune on it and was beaming wearing it.

She asked, "So, how do I look son?"

I responded, "You always look great mother", and gave her a really big hug.

* * *

On some occasion a good friend of ours was retiring. Another friend invited him over for a small lunch and just a chat about work matters. Unbeknown to the friend who was retiring many, many folks who loved him came to the same place hiding in a side room.

It was a great surprise when he came and discovered so many loving friends, and so on.

* * *

One day students of a great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, asked him about the following situation.

Suppose that you are hiding an innocent person who is trying to escape from his oppressors. You have a duty to protect a human life and imagine also that you have made to this person a solemn promise. His oppressors knock on your door and asked you whether you know where such and such (an escapee) is? What should you do?

Kant gave an answer that is so bizarre that it is not worthy repeating here. The point is, no matter what you choose to do, you will lie. And the only question is whether you should rather protect an innocent human life or tell the truth. (By the way, if you tell the truth where he hides, you will also lie, because you have also made a solemn promise to protect him).

The bottom line is, some lies are harmful and seriously limit human autonomy. They are wrong. Some lies are white, and not wrong. They are necessary as a matter of smooth human interactions. And some lies are justified by alter more important considerations.

The Precepts, though, are really a description of the naturally spontaneous Wise and Compassionate behavior of a Buddha ("one who is 'awake' "), and as such the Precepts are not considered as normative as, say, the Decalog is ("The Ten Commandments"), and, as I say, are actually descriptive.

My Precepts Master, the Ven. Sheng Yen, in teaching about the Precepts, and transmitting them in ceremony for Ch'an lay practitioners, said, "It is better to have Precepts to 'break' than no Precepts at all". I'll add no commentary to the depth and richness of that!

best,

--Joe

ps all actions, in any case, have ...consequences, as Avisitor reminds above.

I am not completely sure about some of your points. So, let me try to add a few friendly comments and qualifications.

First, about commandments and (or versus) descriptions. Commandments, when expressed in a standard linguistic form, go as follows:

* Do not kill, but cherish all life!* Do not lie, but tell the truth!

If they are so expressed, then they are not descriptions. Description would be something like, "Buddhas do not killing but cherishes all life", and so on.

Second, it is plausible that commandments are somehow related to how awakened people act. I have heard and read similar claims many times. The question then would be about how to explain the link between how the awakened beings act and the commandments. One possibility would be to use so called hypothetical imperatives, e.g.,

* Awakened being do not kill, but cherish all life (<-- description). So, (a hypothetical imperative--->) if you want to be awakened (act in an awakened way), do not kill and cherish all life!* Buddhas do not lie, but tell the truth (<--- a description). So, (a hypothetical imperative--->) in order to become a buddha (act in an awakened way), do not not lie and tell the truth!

These are just examples how it can be done.

A further question then would be why the awakened being do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, and so on. Several answers can be found in Buddhist (and also Hindu) sources. One is that it generated a peace of mind and good karma leading to auspicious ways to be reborn. Another answer is that these forms of actions stem from a general principle of acting with compassion and wisdom. More specifically, lies, killings, and all the rest tend to cause enormous harms. So, wise-compassionate people do not kill, lie, and so on. Yet another answer is that this is just the essence of being awakened and wise. These answers are not mutually exclusive.

Interestingly enough, none of these answers postulates the existence of Deity who command us to do various things. In this respect, Buddhism seems to be quite different from many forms of Christianity. Also, none of these explanations postulates that it is the Buddha who requires us to do various things. Rather, the Buddha tells us what the consequences of our acts may be and what acting with wisdom-compassion entails.

Third, the point about normativity of precepts. They are just as normative as any other precept (including the "Ten Commandments" or a requirement to change the oils in the car every so often). I think an interesting question is about how strong (stringent) they are. That is, are they absolute, meaning that they allow for no exceptions? Or, are they less stringent, allowing for some qualifications and exception?

Debates of these sorts took place both within Christianity and within Buddhism. Some Christians tend to be quite absolutistic about, for example, not-killing. Thus, they object to all wars, euthanasia, suicide, abortion, and Capital Punishment. Other Christians tend to be less absolutistic about not-killing, allowing for various exceptions, e.g., for cases of just war, euthanasia of people who are in hopeless conditions, and so on.

Similarly, some Buddhist tend to be very absolutistic about precepts. Views of this sort are more popular within Theravada tradition. And some Buddhist tend to be more contextual about following the precepts and tend to adopt some exceptions. Views of these sort are more popular in Mahayana circles.

In a famous Zen anecdote, a master and a student come to the river and face a woman who is in despair because she cannot get to the other shore. The master immediately lifts her, carries her across the water, and puts save on the dry land.

A few days later, a student asks, "We both took a vow not to touch a woman. Yet you this beautiful woman across the river. Why did you do this?"

The master replies, "I left her right there and then on the river bank. Yet you still carry her in your mind."

In this story, a student is slavishly attached to the precepts; specifically, to the vow not to touch a woman. By contrast, the master understands that precepts are all but imperfect expressions of wisdom-compassion and that, in this context, wisdom-compassion implies that we have to help a human being in need. Even though this, technically speaking, would be a violation of the letter of the precept. The student acts in a more absolutistic Theravada-like way. The master acts like a bodhisattva. He usually follows the precepts. But he breaks them when it's consistent wit wisdom-compassion.

I hope this is not too long. But it seemed to me important to draw a few philosophical distinctions and qualification. (After all, I am a philosopher.)

A Philosopher wrote:I am not completely sure about some of your points. So, let me try to add a few friendly comments and qualifications.

First, about commandments and (or versus) descriptions. Commandments, when expressed in a standard linguistic form, go as follows:

* Do not kill, but cherish all life!* Do not lie, but tell the truth!

If they are so expressed, then they are not descriptions. Description would be something like, "Buddhas do not killing but cherishes all life", and so on.

Well, I'm not talking about commandments, nor the Decalog (the Ten Commandments), but about the Buddhist Precepts.

You have phrased or posed examples of two Precepts in normative form. That's OK!, I'd say.

When they are posed in original form, the translation of the two you post comes out as:

* No Killing* No false-speech

This is their non-normative descriptive form, and interpretation.

Granted, they are descriptions of what's LACKING in a Buddha's behavior, but this evidently is what the historical Buddha wished to emphasize. What's POSITIVE or substantive depends on causes and conditions, quite in keeping with the Buddha's teaching on dependent-arising. We DON'T concoct or engineer those behaviors in advance of the need for them. "The Great Way is not difficult, ..." etc., etc.

I think the Buddha was smart, Wise, and Compassionate in not seeking to "over-determine" the behavior of disciples. Even in the writing of the Common Law of society, and of modern laws, much specificity is left OUT, in order that would-be infractors can't find clever ways of breaking the spirit of the law by evading the letter of the law.

As an aside, I mention that of course at its start Buddhadharma was more of an oral tradition of teaching than it is now. Thus, memory was KEY to accepting and holding the teachings. Thus, the teachings were kept mercifully brief, and usually given in numbered mnemonic-assist "batches", as we know -- The Four this-es; The Eight that-s; The Ten Grave Precepts -- Embellishments could come later, when writing on palm-leaves was developed. But even following that development, not everyone was literate, nor had to be.

best,

--Joe

Last edited by desert_woodworker on Sun Jul 12, 2015 7:02 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Hi brother Philosopher!I studied philosophy too.If you are interested in my opinion - yes, that felt a bit long for me.Distilling to some basic idea could be great.Terms like "hypothetical imperative" seem to me not very much helping to develop understanding of causes and conditions there, so they might be omitted.

I too felt that Joe's original explanation was not very clear (why descriptive? what did Joe mean?), so it's great that now Joe have explained.Thank you brothers

chang zhao wrote:Hi brother Philosopher!I studied philosophy too.If you are interested in my opinion - yes, that felt a bit long for me.Distilling to some basic idea could be great.Terms like "hypothetical imperative" seem to me not very much helping to develop understanding of causes and conditions there, so they might be omitted.

I too felt that Joe's original explanation was not very clear (why descriptive? what did Joe mean?), so it's great that now Joe have explained.Thank you brothers

Appreciated and taken to heart. It's professional hazard as I do it for living. But, at least, I tried to break it in shorter sections.

I'll try to do better next time. Thanks!

("

Last edited by A Philosopher on Sun Jul 12, 2015 8:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Yes, well, just experimentally, then, take a view of the Precepts for a moment as "descriptive" of a Buddha's behavior, even though they just tell us what is MISSING from a Buddha's behavior. And accept that "a buddha" is not just the historical Buddha, Siddharta Shakyamuni, but any person who is awake ("Buddha" just means "one who is awake"). The Precepts can be seen then to describe (shall we say "name"?) some major "things" that are missing in an awakened person's behavior. Taken together, the names of these missing things serve to describe the fabric of a facet of the character of a Buddha's behavior.

It's like "describing" a person's mouth by telling what TEETH are missing in a person's mouth after a fist-fight. Teeth are common, but missing-teeth are rather an important difference from the norm! ("Cripes!, he lost two incisors and a bicuspid in that tussle!").

I feel this is rather momentous as an experiment, because it gives us a clue about what awakening, within our own Buddhist practice, will be "like", not in terms of how it feels, or how the world and Life then seem qualitatively to us, but in terms of what's no longer with us, and what's no longer true of us. I think this is quite morally educational, and useful in the period when we are not yet awakened. I mean, it exemplifies our potential, and our need to realize that potential, really and practically. As such, it is a spur to our practice, for ourselves and others.

We have, thus, in the Buddha, an example, an exemplar. NOT just a preacher, not just a "Moralist", moralizing. But someone whom we can become like. We have the right stuff. What we need do is be rid of the wrong stuff.

Certainly, any of us can view the Precepts as normative, and many people do, and still benefit from a relationship with the Precepts (as many do).

But the Buddha knew what to include in his Top-Ten list through his recognition that these ten things were no longer true of him and his behavior, following his awakening under the tree.

Anyway, I suggest this experiment with this alternative view, unpopular though this view may be: "Look at it from the Buddha's point of view!" He cannot prescribe, he can only describe. Or, yes, if you like, "name".

Now, calling out names is not normative, either. It's a way of indicating by reference; pointing. Naming the missing teeth.

With best greetings,

--Joe

Last edited by desert_woodworker on Sun Jul 12, 2015 8:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Yes, well, just experimentally, then, take a view of the Precepts for a moment as "descriptive" of a Buddha's behavior, even though they just tell us what is MISSING from a Buddha's behavior. And accept that "a buddha" is not just the historical Buddha, Siddharta Shakyamuni, but any person who is awake ("Buddha" just means "one who is awake"). The Precepts can be seen then to describe (shall we say "name"?) some major "things" that are missing in an awakened person's behavior. Taken together, the names of these missing things serve to describe the fabric of a facet of the character of a Buddha's behavior.

It's like "describing" a person's mouth by telling what TEETH are missing in a person's mouth after a fist-fight. Teeth are common, but missing-teeth are rather an important difference from the norm! ("Cripes!, he lost two incisors and a bicuspid in that tussle!").

I feel this is rather momentous as an experiment, because it gives us a clue about what awakening, within our own Buddhist practice, will be "like", not in terms of how it feels, or how the world and Life then seem qualitatively to us, but in terms of what's no longer with us, and what's no longer true of us. I think this is quite morally educational, and useful in the period when we are not yet awakened. I mean, it exemplifies our potential, and our need to realize that potential, really and practically. As such, it is a spur to our practice, for ourselves and others.

Certainly, any of us can view the Precepts as normative, and many people do, and still benefit from a relationship with the Precepts (as many do).

But the Buddha knew what to include in his Top-Ten list through his recognition that these ten things were no longer true of him and his behavior, following his awakening under the tree.

I agree with much what you wrote.

I would add two things. Certain things are missing from the buddhas character (like, cruelty, greed, hate) and actions (buddhas do not kill wantonly, do not lie, and so on). Certain things are present (actualized) in the buddhas character (e.g., wisdom, compassion, benevolence, fortitude, and so on) and actions (not only that the buddhas do not kill but also, on a positive side, they cherish all life, they care about all life, and so on).

Still, these are all descriptions. At the level of norms or commands or precept, we would have something like, "do not kill!", or "do not lie!"

So why should we follow those commands? Because that's how all buddhas act and we have a strong aspiration to become a buddha. also, because those sorts of actions are right for various other reasons already mentioned (e.g., they stem from the wisdom-compassion, they create good karma and auspicious re-birth, and so on).

... "Look at it from the Buddha's point of view!" He cannot prescribe, he can only describe. Or, yes, if you like, "name".

Now, calling out names is not normative, either. It's a way of indicating by reference; pointing.

Best greetings,

--Joe

Why do you think that the buddha cannot prescribe but only describe? This does not seem to me plausible at all. If a buddha chooses to use words at all, then it would seem to me that he/she can both describe and prescribe. The question would be why he would choose certain kinds of prescriptions rather than others. But this question is already answered (i.e., because at the most basic level it is both prudent and compassionate).